I'm not trying to debate you on the non-existence of God. You're debating me on the existence of God.

You have to go first and you hold the burden of proof.

Present your evidence for God.
With some of the most powerful telescopes made by man, we have been able to discover a galaxy that is thirteen billion light-years away.
Yet no bearded, robed white guy yet.

My evidence for God is anecdotal and based on faith. There is no empirical evidence for God. God cannot be empirically proved or disproved. God is metaphysical. Evidence is based on observable, objective claims; this is in direct contention with metaphysics.

The belief in God is planted in faith. Faith is not knowledge. If you have you knowledge, then you cannot have faith. Faith is a belief that cannot be proved or disproved via empirical evidence. There is no empirical way to believe in God (as He cannot be proved empirically), so this is why faith is required. It is a vessel that is used to have a belief in something that isn't empirical.

My personal evidence that is as close to empirical as I can get, is my sudden, radical change to a belief in God.

Anecdotal evidence isn't considered empirical because it can't be fully proved or disproved. There is no empirical evidence for the existence of God; likewise, there isn't any against his existence, either.

So, in order to argue the metaphysical nature of God, we can't rely fully on empirical evidence. If we do, then we are not approaching the argument is a full, fair scope.

In summary, God cannot be proved or disproved empirically. In order to continue this debate, we have to agree to allow anecdotal evidence and faith based arguments.

Having faith in a deity is almost equal in comparison to having the belief in leprechauns, fairies, unicorns, and other mythical beings that lack evidence.
We can explain the universe fume without God.

(08-01-2013 05:41 PM)Refuting_Ignorance_Every_Day Wrote: Having faith in a deity is almost equal in comparison to having the belief in leprechauns, fairies, unicorns, and other mythical beings that lack evidence.
We can explain the universe fume without God.

You did not address my point. If you're going to debate like this, I would rather not.

You just pointed out that the physical universe can be explained with empirical evidence. You added nothing knew to the discussion and did not establish the boundaries as to what is considered "evidence" when debating the metaphysical.

Okay. We can discuss the morality of the biblical God.
I have only read Genesis in the Torah and Matthew in the Bible, as that was enough to convince me that religion was fucked up.
Why would a benevolent God kill every human being on Earth including infants, children, and pregnant women?
How could people believe in a God that evil?